Talk:Space habitat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Mid

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Space Colonization WikiProject edit

Core concepts

Colonization and terraforming

Organizations

This seems to me to be misnamed. It should be called 'Orbital Space Colonies' or 'Orbital Space Habitats' or something like that. Also, I don't understand why the writing is suspect. Is all pretty well established stuff. See http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Design.html

I agree. I added a section giving NASA's references, (surely they are space scientists if anyone is!). I am removing the reference request. User:Ray Van De Walker

i have a question-for anyone who has played "zone of the enders"(the first one)- Would Antilla be an O'Neill cylinder? seeing as there is a section there about "O'Neill cylinders in popular culture,i thought it was prudent to check. (yes i know i should have put that there but i havent because this is a more central page with all the links on) Pikajedi3 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Nuclear power / magnetosphere

Can anyone make this sentence more clear? I don't understand how these are connected: "As well, colonies are well outside the magnetosphere of Earth, and can employ nuclear power without fear of pollution."Dreixel 14:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Found source of the problem. From the Project Orion article:
Today, if Orion-style nuclear pulse rockets are built they can legally be launched from above the magnetosphere so that charged ions of fallout in its exhaust plasma are not trapped by the Earth's magnetic field and are not returned to Earth.
Someone must have read this and extrapolated. But this refers only to nuclear explosions, not nuclear reactors. So the statements in the above sentence are not connected. I'll rewrite the statement in question to reflect that. Noclevername 04:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear

What does # 9 under Problems mean? Can someone clear this statement up? Noclevername 18:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. I've tagged it with a request for a citation, because hopefully one would clarify the intended meaning. If we don't get one soon, I suggest removing it. JulesH 18:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centrifugal/centripetal force

(copied from User talk:JulesH:) Hmm, just looking to avoid a 'revert war', but as I understand it, the centrifugal force acts in a reactionary manner on the object which is exerting the centripetal force. In this case, the habitat is exerting a centripetal force on its occupants, while the occupants are exerting a reactionary centrifugal force on the habitat. That is why I'm suggesting that centripetal be used, rather than centrifugal, as the subject is the effect on the occupants.

The ficticious definition of the centrifugal force really doesn't help someone who is trying to understand it as it is, well, ficticious, and therefore could lead someone analysing the physics in the wrong direction (pun entirely unintended). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiroth (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The problem with saying it's the centripetal force that acts in this manner is twofold:
  • Centripetal force acts in the opposite direction to the "gravity" that is felt in a rotating frame, so clearly it isn't actually centripetal force. It might, however, be the reaction force provided by centripetal force, except...
  • Only something that's actually in contact with the outer edge would experience centripetal force. But all objects within the frame of reference experience apparent downwards acceleration, whether they are in contact or not. The acceleration is fictitious (i.e., it's really caused by an *absence* of acceleration due to there being no centripetal force to keep the object moving in a circle), but is an observable phenomenon. The "force" causing it is the fictitious centrifugal force (really a combination of inertia and lack of centrepetal force, which is effectively what centrifugal force is).
Hope that clarifies things. JulesH 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough - it does end up becoming a more useful way of looking at it than analysis of real forces in the end, doesn't it? Although I still believe that centripetal is the more technically accurate, centrifugal it is for reasons of convenience. -Xiroth 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Bubbleworld" asteroids

Should Larry Niven's concept of hollowing, heating and "inflating" iron asteroids to make large space habitats be included, or is it too speculative at present? --- Noclevername 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are non-fictional sources, I think it should be included. JulesH 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Got it. In the nonfiction article "Bigger than Worlds", Niven states that he got the design from the book Islands in Space by Dandridge M. Cole and Donald W. Cox. ---Amazon.com: found it, Islands in Space;: The Challenge of the Planetoids (the ;: appears to be part of the title), 1964, "unknown binding" [1]. I'll add the description but I have had a terrible time trying to use footnotes (newbie, y'know). Any help in doing so would be appreciated. Noclevername 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reference to Niven's article? JulesH 08:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"Bigger Than Worlds", section title: "Inside-Outside", pp. 517-518, Playgrounds of the Mind, Larry Niven, Tor Science Fiction, 1991 Noclevername 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)